How Disinformation Becomes History

In the premiere issue of 2013 in AMERICAN FREE PRESS, we reflectedon the proliferation of rumors poppingup in the “alternative media” based on misinterpretation of sloppy reporting by the mainstreampress about current events. This week weexamine other stories—deliberate forgeries—that have taken on a life of their own, contributingmuch confusion within what is known as “thetruth movement.” Many such rumors are iconic and good people have invested much energy promotingthese legends. But legends they are.

In some cases, well-meaning folks thought that by putting those frauds into circulation they werehelping impart greater truths people needed toknow.

Other stories had less than benevolent motivations behind them. They were concocted for thevery purpose ofmuddying the waters of serious research into major issues of our time.

Here are some notable forgeries that bear mention:

• The spurious “interview” with Harold WallaceRosenthal in which he unveils “insider” secrets of the Zionist conspiracy;

• The supposedly “secret speech” by Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich in Budapest in 1952;

• The long-hailed Red Symphony book attributedto “Josef Landowksy” purportedly recounting the interrogationof a Soviet official named Rakovsky;

These are only a few examples among many.While much of what appears in these forgeries“sounds good” and meets with the approval ofmany, the stories themselves just aren’t true.

There are other methods of spreading falsehoods, disguised by other sometimes clever—butsinister—means.

An increasingly popular scenario for inserting disinformation into popular discourse has beenthe “discovery” of hidden “diaries” and other documents described as the musings of dead Nazis ordead CIA officers or dead international bankers,judicious examination of which will reveal they are fictions based on carefully-crafted interweaving ofa variety of previously published material freelyaccessible in other literature.

In other cases, you’ll find very real news stories or existing documents have been altered or otherwisemisrepresented as to their meaning.

For example, one innocuous media reportabout the corrupt Goldman Sachs (GS) bankingempire was slightly amended by a rumor-mongerto include the claim that GS losses had been channeled to secret bank accounts in Israel.

While that allegation is entirely believable, the part of the story relating to the secret accountswas a fabrication that many unwittingly thus attributed to a “reliable” media source.

And then there’s the legendary executive order(EO) 11110 by JFK creating U.S. notes that wassupposedly reversed after JFK’s assassination byLBJ. A careful analysis proved that the EO was real, but had nothing to do with U.S.notes. It goes on and on and on.

Next week: the fantastic myths that the Bush, Rockefeller and Rothschild families along with ahost of “Jewish bankers”—working together or independently—helped finance Hitler’s rise to power.

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.

I have only seen “too many translations” “typical fabrication” but no one disputes the claims within.

Assume it is 100% fake, interrogation is a fake—this says nothing of the claims within.

I don’t see anything anti-Semitic in it.

If anything, it is quite even-handed and very open-ended, Rakovsky doesn’t know who “they” are.

Haven’t seen any real good rebuttal of it. Assume it is 100% fabricated interrogation that never took place. This says nothing of the events claimed.

For all we know, it can be a historian/government/whoever who had suspicions, but no hard evidence, so wrote some claims to see how people would react e.g. to try and “smoke them out” and see who denies such claims.

What is most lazy, is the “hoax” people do not say who would benefit from a hoax? It is pretty even-handed, questions Stalin and Hitler and NY motives.

It is easy to say this is typical anti-communist propaganda, but without pointing out who wrote it, when, and why, this too, is unverifiable. Research the authors and publishers over the years, find out what they have in common, who funds them, if this is your claim.

It is an interesting starting point. I would not look at it as gospel, but instead as a starting point. Same as any other document—claims and events can be compared with other literature and documents.

It is a minor point, but just because authorship is fake, doesn’t mean all events claimed are.

I am unsatisfied with debunking of it, all I have seen is “typical anti-internationalism” without any supporting evidence it is a hoax.

No, it is silly to accept it as gospel. However, it is a starting point, for further investigation.